[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 52 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Join the Day of Action for Net Neutrality, or else we may all end up banned from 4chan.



File: d0e4.jpg (13 KB, 236x332)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
Peer-reviewed study finds that three key global temperature data sets are "not a valid representation of reality."

A new peer-reviewed bombshell study concludes that three key global temperature data sets used in recent climate change models have been "adjusted" in such a way as to not be "a valid representation of reality."

"In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever — despite current claims of record setting warming."

The researchers explain in the abstract that they set out to "test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes."

And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

One of the authors, meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, pointed out to The Daily Caller that almost all of the adjustments made to past and present temperature data sets helped promote the global warming theory.

"Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments. Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming," he said. "You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened."


http://www.dailywire.com/news/18433/uh-oh-new-report-just-dropped-bomb-key-climate-james-barrett
>>
Global warming the greatest scam in history
Here is the actual study:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment
issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported
historical GAST data are quantified. While the notion that some
“adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not
challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical
temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these
temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean
that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line
slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly
always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire
history.

That was accomplished by systematically removing the previously
existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three
entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and
Hadley CRU.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data
sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of
their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical
temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and
credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to
conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years
have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting
warming.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
>>
>>156034
>Record heat outside again.

Damn those weather people for manipulating the current temperatures
>>
>dailywire
Nice try, OP. Almost had me bamboozled
>>
>>156053
>muh science is only real when shareblue.com reports the study

It's a peer review paper you dingus.
>>
>>156054
By paid scientists from fossil fuel industries.
>>
>>156034
We already have a thread on this very article: >>155903
>>
>>156070
As opposed to scientists paid by the Soros Socialism industry.
>>
>study finds all the data is a lie!

so basically, they're admitting that point that the data that exists does indisputably point toward AGW.
>>
>>156034
D'Aleo is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[5] The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
lol. paid by koch brothers
>>
>>156078
Far worse than that. This study has found that the only way to correctly get today's observed temperatures out of these data sets is if you remove all back dated historical adjustments. The problem is once you do this all global warming disappears.

In other words it was all a scam. Global warming is an artifact of manipulated data. Nothing else.
>>
>>156077
>Soros
>Socialism industry
?
>>
>>156078
Once their study is replicated by independent scientists, if the findings are valid then scientific consensus can begin to change. Let's wait and see.
>>
>>156082
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VckNn5CqggQ

No I'm afraid that's correct. Comey really did it with the explicit intend to get a special counsel in place to remove to president.
>>
>>156080
Yeah, I'll take this as an admission that warming wasn't flat which was the previous line from these tabloids.

We see a lot of these "studies". It always turns out to be fucking nothing.
Let's wait and see if anyone can convincingly poke holes in it.
>>
>>156086
yeah and in the meantime thousands die every year because of the fake global warming scam

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/10/the-grenfell-tower-fire-would-not-have-happened-without-eu-and-climate-regulations/
>>
>>156082
Universities you fucking cuck
>>
>>156034
the arabs of usa (coal & oil industry) do their job.
braindead "alt rights" believe what paid think tanks churn out. nothing new.
99% of scientists and the scientific method say otherwise. some made leaks dont change this,
>>
>>156095
>muh globull warming
did you know that China is producing more CO2 than Europe and the US combined? Yet for some inexplicable reason they are exempt to change anything under the Paris accords. China is free to build as much industry as it likes. The US and Europe on the other hand must pay big penalties for every ice cream shop they open.

Global Warming is a scam you idiot.
>>
So, climate change is real because Earth's climate has never been static.

Earth NEEDS carbon dioxide. The science behind CO2 emissions from humans is a flawed one.
>>
Please ignore the multi-hundred-billion-dollar fossil fuel multinationals and focus your attention on the real culprit: collusion between independent and tenured scientists at universities, non-profit institutions, and in the EPA. All those egg-head sciency type folks, they just want some of that sweet, sweet grant money.
>>
>>156105
> independent scientists
lol. None of them are independent. When you don't tow the global warming lie you are fired in five seconds. Only the very very top of their field like Richard Lindzen or privately funded like from koch grants can afford to do real science.

Here he is the top MIT climate scientist and pretty much the best atmospheric physicist that ever lived.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RLPdEMjphM
>>
>>156107
Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Analysis of Peabody Energy court documents show company backed trade groups, lobbyists and thinktanks dubbed ‘heart and soul of climate denial’

Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations
Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
>>
>>156113
You just proved my point. Climate science is a complete cult devoid of any real science.
The only research that deviates even slightly from the UNs established roadmap comes from Independent funding.

Oh and by the way your own "99% of scientists agree" line proves this. This is impossible in any field. Unless there is MAJOR foul play going on. Global Warming is pure Lysenkoism
>>
>>156097
t. retard who doesn't understand the Paris Accords
>>
>>156130
I understand them very well actually. The early drafts go as far back as the leauge of nations.

the globalists have always dreamed of transferring the wealth and technology of Europe and the US to a Communist controlled nation.
>>
>>156034
Global warming / climate change my be occuring at a steady, natural rate. This isn't unusual. Will it cause problems for humanity? Yes, probably. It behooves us to adjust and adapt, to inovate and invest.

My issue is the political machine that is using this "environmental crisis" to leverage control and power over the individual, to seize land and authority and over step their bounds in economic matters. It makes me suspicious that it's beneficial for people to "sell" the idea of man-made global warming. People are always pointing out that fossil fuel companies hire people / lobby for "fake studies" but noone ever suspects politicians and government officials of doing the same. They arguably have much more to gain.
>>
>>156034
>>dailywire
Did you look at the people on the study they're linking? It's just another paid hit piece.

>>156117
The 99% is a meme to simplify it for people like you. Of course they don't entirely agree but the debate is how much of an impact humans are having. There's really no question humans are heating up the planet.
>>
>>156156
^exactly the kind of person I'm talking about. They trust the government more than businesses, which is fine - but I don't think the government should be nessesarily given a free pass when contrary studies arise. The fact they are so malicious towards info that goes against their adgenda reeks of politcal motives.
>>
>>156054
>It's a peer review paper
I keep hearing claims but see no proof.

Is it this same "study"?

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/10783/could-this-study-totally-dismantle-global-warming-claims
>>
>Dailywire article links to the study on a wordpress site

So...where was it peer reviewed and published? Why didn't they link to the journal instead? Peer review implies it being sent to a credible journal to be looked at by experts in their field, not your friends who are all being paid by the same lobbying group.
>>
>>156387
I read the study, it points out that the EPA, NOAA, NASA, MET use speculous reasoning in their data points, namely they changed historic temperature points to "adjust for bias" and then proceeded to adjust all temperature points toward a warming trend. They never adjusted down, not to the degree they should have been. They also never accounted for weather anomalies or el nino.
>>
>>156034

>dailywire

Into the trash it goes.
>>
>>156389
The point is saying it is peer reviewed when it clearly wasn't is misleading at best and fraudulent at worse. It doesn't even read like a scientific journal article which tends to have a methodology section, results, and a discussion. It's also poorly sourced, frequently citing other Wordpress blogs and a site called "Climate4you" which is run by a known climate-change denier.

This shit wouldn't even pass in a freshman English course much less as scientific literature.
>>
>>156404
>Clearly wasn't
Not saying it is or isn't, but how did you determine this?
>>
>>156404
This. I submitted assignments at university which were more likely to be published than this 'peer reviewed' junk
>>
>>156412
How did you determine it was junk? Just curious
>>
>>156034
She never said that, nigger.
>>
>>156411
Because instead of linking to a scientific journal, it links to a wordpress site.

Here's an actual peer reviewed paper that I co-authored. The publication is the American Phytopathological Society, the volume number is 101, its issue 1 for this year, and it's on page 257 of that issue.

http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/full/10.1094/PDIS-08-16-1118-PDN

That "peer reviewed paper" has no scientific journal attached to it, because it's honestly very shoddy research so who would publish it, and then just a list of names of people who agree with the author. That's not how peer review works, at all.
>>
>>156389
>I read the study, it points out that the EPA, NOAA, NASA, MET use speculous reasoning in their data points, namely they changed historic temperature points to "adjust for bias" and then proceeded to adjust all temperature points toward a warming trend.
Asserting that those groups are lying isn't the same thing as actually pointing out flaws in their methodologies.

The adjustments deniers like to cry about aren't random changes secretly slipped into the raw data because someone felt like they needed to be be there, they're public information with peer-reviewed papers documenting and justifying each batch of adjustments. A legitimate paper that was actually written with the intent of advancing climatology would focus on a particular set of changes made by a particular body to a particular dataset, and it would work through the paper that justified the changes and show why it was flawed. This does none of that. Pointing at every dataset and shouting "they all frauds!" isn't science, it's science-denial.

I mean, fuck. Look at the actual paper. It fails to even make a coherent argument - it's just "look at this graph, doesn't it look suspicious?"
>>
Nobody remembers a few years ago when all the historical temperature data from the 1800's was "Digitized"

They went in and recorded all the temp and weather data into computer readable format, then destroyed all the original records

Course they updated the data to account for the primitive recording technology they had back then, as if thermometers worked differently then.
>>
>>157334
The thermometer didn't work differently back then, we've just stopped using thermometers and instead use more accurate instruments. If this doesn't warrant some correction of temperature data, then I don't know what does...
>>
>>157334
>They went in and recorded all the temp and weather data into computer readable format, then destroyed all the original records
Do you have a credible source for that?
Because "climate scientists are destroying records" comes up every few months, and it always turns out to be nothing.
>>
>>157356
Does it though?
>>
>>157524
>Does it though?
Yes.
>>
Politician: The Earth is flat!

Scientist: No, the Earth is Round!

Politician: Here, have a million dollars…

Scientist: How flat would you like it?

This is called pseudoscience Or just out right lying
>>
There is one fact in life. Any time a politician gets involved with any cause there is money involved. They will lie manipulate data anything it takes to justify taxing the citizens, including fear mongering. Which is their all-time favorite. Scare people enough and they will agree to anything. Like scared sheep they will do whatever these criminals tell them to. And the politicians know this.

Now for CO2 to be blamed solely on climate change is like believing in Santa Claus.

One volcano erupting can produce more CO2 than the industrialized world can create in a year. If you notice China and India are exempt till at least 2030 wonder why? Simply because they have lots of cheap or slave labor for the big multinational companies.

If you think about it, what is far more dangerous is all the chemicals and pollution the big multinationals dump into our environment that poisons our water and food supply.
>>
It all comes down to money and power, equals Al Gore. Al Gore then promote pseudoscience as science. End of discussion, the debate is over, you're not allowed to question anything, and if you do we will throw you in jail. Plus we have to get rid of free speech. This to me sounds like a religion of CO2. When do we start burning all science books to appease the religion of CO2?

My next question is when was America taken over by the communist? Or is this just part of the New World Order ran by oligarchs and fascist dictators.

Let's follow the money. Who benefits and who loses?

1. Who is supplying the money? The taxpayers of the world or the sheep.

2. Who's is getting the cash? The politicians and their friends and the pseudoscience community. We mustn't forget Al Gore's Documentary's and book deals plus all the green energy companies that has received billions of taxpayers dollars and has increased Al Gore's wealth by many millions of dollars. Just because he was able to scare the sheep with one of the biggest con jobs in history.

3. Who is not benefiting? 99.99% of the worlds population, and anyone that tries to expose the con artist.

It only took 350 Years for the Vatican to Says Galileo Was Right. I hope that it doesn't take 350 years for the religion of CO2 to admit to the world that they are WRONG.
>>
>>158110
>>158111
You dumbasses forget many (most?) politicians are opposed to taking action on AGW. Or is are groups like the US Republicans and Australian Liberals secretly pro-AGW now?

>Now for CO2 to be blamed solely on climate change is like believing in Santa Claus.
No, it's actually what the evidence shows. CO2 has a clear and well-known role in regulating the Earth's surface temperature. Altering the CO2 concentration will alter the equilibrium temperature, via a number of feedbacks. This is all well-established science.

>One volcano erupting can produce more CO2 than the industrialized world can create in a year.
That's complete bullshit. Volcanic activity emits a few hundred Mt/year. Humans emit several tens of Gt/year.

>>158112
>It all comes down to money and power, equals Al Gore. Al Gore then promote pseudoscience as science. End of discussion, the debate is over, you're not allowed to question anything, and if you do we will throw you in jail. Plus we have to get rid of free speech. This to me sounds like a religion of CO2. When do we start burning all science books to appease the religion of CO2?
Where do you get this babble from? No-one but denialists cares about Al Gore, and the idea "you're not allowed to question anything" is pure persecution fantasy - many political groups and companies still publicly call AGW a scam/bullshit.

>My next question is when was America taken over by the communist? Or is this just part of the New World Order ran by oligarchs and fascist dictators.
What the fuck?
>>
>>156098
>>156098
Your body also NEEDS salt. But that doesn't mean you'll be fine if you try and eat a pound of it.
>>
>>158119
The point is the everytime the models are off, they just adjust the models and temps. To make their models more dramatic and convincing.

It's bad science.
>>
>>158123
>The point is the everytime the models are off, they just adjust the models and temps. To make their models more dramatic and convincing.
The actual point is that's complete rubbish.
>>
>>158133
Not an argument
>>
>>158135
Neither is your post unless you have some proof
>>
>>158161
Read the report then
>>
>>156046
Weather =/= climate
Climatard
>>
>>156113
>only my government and university completely unbiased researched and reporting and warming alarmism is acceptable.
>nobody else can do any research that is viable or acceptable
Fuck off
>>
>>156046
>snowing outside
>"Heh, so much for global warming, huh?"
>>
>>156046
LOL this is exactly the kind of ignorant shit christian scientists say.

Further proof that climate alarmists are no more informed than climate deniers.

I know the guy above me just said this, but you're too stupid for subtlety.
>>
>>158173
Much like your comments, the report contains lots of inferences but no evidence. Hence why no peer reviewed journal is putting their name to it
>>
>>158304
Not to get conspiratorial, but I don't trust anything regarding global warming because it always leads to power and money seizure by the government.
>>
>>158173
The fake peer reviewed report that is poorly sourced and doesn't go into the reasoning of why they say the process is wrong and also lacks any evidence?

You sure showed me.
>>
>>158314
OY GEVALT
HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT
WE ONLY WHAT YOUR BEST, YOUR MONEY!
>>
>>158471
You read the whole thing? I'm sure you didn't let your ego or preconceptions get in the way
>>
>>158481
I'm sure you read the report with an open mind as well and didn't let your ego or preconceived notions get in the way of critically evaluating this so called "study."
>>
>>158505
I read it. I think it should be considered, as well as all if the data it critiques.
>>
>>158507
If you look at the study in a vacuum it is rather shocking without hearing the reasons and how's behind temperature adjustments. Though I guess saying "I don't really have anything" isn't as compelling as just making shit up.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

Interesting enough, one of their complaints disappears if you extend the timescale of the data they are analyzing and look at the raw data compared to the corrected data. Prior to 1950, the data is actually corrected upwards https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/smith-and-reynolds-2002-001.jpg even though they claimed that the data was doctored to show recent temperatures were hotter and early temperatures were colder.
>>
>>158507
>I read it. I think it should be considered, as well as all if the data it critiques.
No-one is saying it should be considered. What they're saying is that after considering it, it's an insult to climatology.
It doesn't even bother distinguishing between the different data sets it's criticising. How can you read that and think it's actual research?
>>
>>156079
/thread
>>
>>156088
Yes, this is certainly a reliable source.
>>
Just so we are all clear how stupid this conversation is... this guy is famous for being one of the people hired on by the lunatic who created the Weather Channel as an outlet to prove global warming was fake, God was real, and evolution was a hoax.

https://www.good.is/articles/you-don-t-need-a-weatherman

He is also Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), an organization and website that bring together climate scientists to "examine climate change". It's a tax free non-profit funded by... TAKE A WILD GUESS?! Donations from the coal and oil industries!

In addition, he is listed as a policy expert at the Heartland Institute (A Koche Brothers foundation) and as a partner in Hudson Seven Ltd. ( A Cayman Islands holding company used to launder money for oil corporations.)
Combine this with his well documented religious crazy and he literally could not be more bias.

Check out his wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%27Aleo

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
>>
>>159740
>the lunatic who created the Weather Channel
Side note, but the fact that the Weather Channel (which takes a very strong "AGW is real" stance) was founded by an loud denier of AGW is an interesting twist of history.
>>
>Releasing CO2 into atmosphere
>Cutting down trees

And people think carbon levels will balance themselves out? What a joke.
>>
>>156046
We are having one of the coldest summers ever here.
>>
>>160115
Complete opposite in south Texas, too bad you don't understand the difference between weather and climate.
>>
>>156137
I like anyone who uses "behooves" without prompting.
>>
Дaжe ecли пoтeплeниe цикличecкoe, тo ceйчac имeннo этa фaзa.
>>
>>156034

>Receive oil company bribe
>Well, looks like we got a "bombshell" of new data disproving global warming, AGAIN.
>>
>>156082
He means Jews. And he's not wrong.
>>
>>156034

I always say check the lava records.
>>
>>160091
Yeah. Ever heard of THE OCEAN?
>>
>>161108
Yes, the ocean can store a lot of carbon, but it's capacity is not infinite and the rate is slow.
>>
>>161194
You want to store carbon? Cut down the rainforest and turn it into furniture. Thus preventing the trees from dying and rotting and giving their carbon back to the atmosphere.
>>
>>161195
Who the hell is going to use all that furniture, if they're not maintained, then they'll rot anyways. Also rotting trees return most of their carbon and nutrients to the ground.
>>
>>161196
You clearly don't have a Mahogany desk. Else you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.
>>
>>161197
I have a wood desk, ny house is made of wood, I don't see the differance it makes.
>>
>>156034
Today I learned Margret thatcher is an idiot.

We'll see if anything comes from this
>>
>Drs. Alan Carlin
An american ECONOMIST
ECONOMIST.
Who has been bitching for long time about Global Warming being fake, so clearly this team went to the guy who could give them confirmation bias, nice work faggots but that's not how a scientist act.


>>156077
Show me the proof.
Meanwhile:
Lamar Smith, the guy charge of the house science, space, and technology committee has said that CO2 is good for the environment and let's take a look at who gave him so much money, oh my, the Gas and Oil industry:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001811
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cid=N00001811&cycle=2016

And the Koch brothers, Oil industry
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/opinion/egan-can-the-kochs-hold-back-history.html?_r=1

They even took a skeptic to prove that it was all a scam, except this guy was a real scientist and what do you know, he actually found out on his own that Global warming is real and man-made
http://www.rawstory.com/2012/07/koch-funded-climate-scientist-i-was-wrong-humans-are-to-blame/

Tell me, what would be the sense of this big scam?

Look at this photo,
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/china-bad-pollution-climate-change-4__880.jpg

this is China, fighting global warming, means trying to avoid for every city in the world to look like THIS, what kind of evil intents could be behind trying to avoid this? Have you ever gone to Beijing? Pitsburgh? Rome? Ever tried to breath what a car pumps out? Do you like it? Why do you want MORE of it?

What do YOU get out of it?
>>
>>161230
Funny. I love this joke about the fucking Chinese being environmentalists.
>>
>>161253
Because is a recent long term project, just a year or so ago a woman who had done a documentary about the pollution was censored, the renewal plan replaced one that was about making many new Coal plants.

China will be environmentalists, IF the government proceed as per this new plan.
>>
>>160498
>Receive government grant
>Well, better get back to our climate "science" so our masters can push for more regulations.
>>
>>161108
Great storage for plastic and other Garbage? Also overfished.
>>
>>161108
More CO2 in the sea makes it acidic. It's why the great barrier reef is pretty much dead.
>>
>>161327
Are you aware that government research grants are something that can't legally be used for anything other than research? Because this is a blatant false equivalency between a bribe meant to go into someones pocket and money meant to be used to find out something and not for personal use.
>>
>>161489
>used for research that advances your career and boosts the prestige and income of your employer

pretending there is no motive to go and seek fame, prestige and money (tenure etc.) is facile. scientists are not perfect paragons of virtue that they are often elevated to be in public thought.
>>
>>161532
>pretending there is no motive to go and seek fame, prestige and money (tenure etc.) is facile.
The fame, prestige and money come from breaking the consensus, or doing something new. "Yes, everyone else was right" papers are severely under published.
>>
>>161532
More often than not they're more interested in the truth and doing good research. Just because you don't personally believe them doesn't make the consensus any less valid.

Also this:
>>161548




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.